Dual Discs?

casper leblanc

What's your experience with it? I'm posting this here cause I think it's the best place for it.

I want to buy Fiona Apple's Extraordinary Machine and the store has it in normal cd-version and on dual disc, including some cool live performances in jazz clubs on dvd. So strictly based on that I'd go for the Dual Disc. It only costs 1,5 euro more as well.

But from what I've read on the Dual Disc site it says: 'to take full advantage of DualDiscs that feature surround sound music, you'll need a 5.1 channel surround system.'

On the disc it also says the cd might not play in all systems.

So basically, is it worth it? I don't have the best sytems for cd or dvd and I'm not planning on buying new ones soon.

swede

well - i just know with fiona apple album that the dual disc is worth it cause the video footage is amazing... wicked version of fast as you can.

i just listen to the cd though and not through the dvd disc that has the better quality as my stereo isnt going to be that awesome that it will pick up on it - i dont think nehow.

PearlJamaholic

dual disc have a stereo version and a 5.1 mix. the disc is two sided. so the cd side should play in every cd player. sacd are cds mixed for 5.1 and they sometimes dont play in cd players. if you have a 5.1 speaker set up there is no reason not to buy dual discs. you play the dvd side at home and the cd side in the car.

moster78

For 1.50 more I don't see why not. I have the With Teeth Dual Disc, and all it really added was the video for The Hand That Feeds and the entire album mixed in 5.1 Digital Surround Sound.

casper leblanc

Thanks for the input. Just wanted to know if it was gonna play on 'normal' cd and/or dvd-players. Looks like I'm getting the dualdisc then.

lukin14

pearlwax wrote:

Thanks for the input. Just wanted to know if it was gonna play on 'normal' cd and/or dvd-players. Looks like I'm getting the dualdisc then.

you probably have to have an ancient cd player for the cd side of a dual disc not to work. . I hate them myself. I prefer the bonus DVD. That way you still have the nice (in some cases) artwork on the disc..


anyway i'm not going to get into it.. too much to do today..

sj_2150

I
Hate
Dual
Discs

mookeywrench

sj_2150 wrote:

I
Hate
Dual
Discs

thank you for your valuable input as to why

BinFrog

Dual Discs can be done well (with DVD-A info and videos on one side), or they can be a waste of time. I much prefer DVD-Audio and SACD discs, but it looks like neither are going to win the format war.

Penny453

I wonder if I'm the only one that's having this problem...but the damn dual discs cometimes won't play for me..the cd part. Sometimes my car won't recognize it as a cd...and yes I'm puting it in on the right side..and it's as brand new car and the stereo system is great in it...I just don't get it....

sj_2150

mookeywrench wrote:

thank you for your valuable input as to why

coz theyre hard to get out of the case, theyre easier to scratch and you cant place em down because they both have info on em

gtbrown77

Penny453 wrote:

I wonder if I'm the only one that's having this problem...but the damn dual discs cometimes won't play for me..the cd part. Sometimes my car won't recognize it as a cd...and yes I'm puting it in on the right side..and it's as brand new car and the stereo system is great in it...I just don't get it....

Dual Discs don't conform to standards for audio CDs, and therefore may not play in all CD players. I haven't had trouble with any of my CD players EXCEPT for the car stereo. I think it has to do with how car stereos are made so that they don't skip unless you hit a gigantic pothole or something. For the Dual Discs I have (SOAD, Fear Factory, Mudvayne), I just ripped the audio to my computer and burned a disc to have in the car. I do that with all of my discs anyway, so it wasn't a big deal. Just sucked that I couldn't listen to those discs on the way home from the store, you know!?

Some of the Dual Discs are cool because the DVD side actually has the audio portion in 5.1 Surround. Others (I think all the ones I have) are just enhanced stereo (48,000kbs v. 44,000kbs). I don't know what the difference is really, and I don't care. I like the video component, and that's why I get 'em. But i do like the CD/DVD packages instead, as you get artwork on the disc instead of two shiny silver sides.

libragirl

I have 2 dual discs fiona apple's extraordinary machine and NIN downward spiral..they are pretty cool

mookeywrench

sj_2150 wrote:

coz theyre hard to get out of the case, theyre easier to scratch and you cant place em down because they both have info on em

so if you properly handle CD's then there shouldn't be a problem...as to the difficulty with getting them out of the case...the widtch of the center doesnt change between dual disc and regular CD's so thats just luck of the draw if you're having trouble with that

mookeywrench

gtbrown77 wrote:

Some of the Dual Discs are cool because the DVD side actually has the audio portion in 5.1 Surround. Others (I think all the ones I have) are just enhanced stereo (48,000kbs v. 44,000kbs). I don't know what the difference is really, and I don't care.

the difference between those sample rates are clarity. The higher the sample rate; the higher the clarity because it gathers more info on whats on the disc. Imagine this sentence is being sampled at 48,000 kbs and the exact same sentence below is being sampled at 44,000 kbs.

thedifference betweenthose samplerates areclarityThehigher thesample ratethe higher teclarity becauseit gathersmore infon whatson thediscImaginehis sentenceis being sampleda 44000 kb and the xactsame sentenceabove is beingsampledat 48000kbs

Obviously if you read one out loud versus the other one the higher sample rate would read a lot smoother.

BinFrog

http://www.revolutionhometheater.com/howto/sacd/index.html

http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip/dvdavssacd/

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/95/5 and the following page (6)

http://www.disctronics.co.uk/technology/dvdaudio/dvdaud_audio.htm

http://news.designtechnica.com/talkback32.html (interesting article about the industry's stupidity of not highly promoting the new formats yet)




"In the constantly changing and rapidly advancing world of recording technology, Telarc continually evaluates the latest developments. Ever since producing its first digital recordings in 1978, Telarc's objective has been TO provide the highest quality music reproduction possible.Now With the development OF the Super Audio Compact DiscTM (SACD), which utilizes the extraordinary Direct Stream DigitalTM(DSD) recording technology, the foundation EXISTS TO launch a new era OF high - resolution stereo AND multi - channel surround recordings.

The new Super Audio Compact Disc format, created BY Sony AND Philips, provides unprecedented sound quality IN stereo AND discrete multi - channel surround. TO achieve its sonic performance, SACD employs DSD, a radically new digital encoding technology.DSD samples the musical signal at a phenomenal 2.8 million times a second, 64 times the amount OF a traditional CD.The result IS an extremely smooth digital waveform WITH unparalleled frequency response AND dynamic range.

The potential benefits OF SACD do NOT stop WITH its performance.The SACD format supports several disc configurations, including a Hybrid SACD designed TO be completely compatible WITH the millions OF CD players IN the market today.Hybrid SACDs actually contain two complete layers OF music information.One layer CONTAINS the high density DSD recording that can be played IN the new generation OF stereo AND surround SACD players.The other layer IS a conventional CD layer, which can play ON ANY CD player."

gtbrown77

mookeywrench wrote:

the difference between those sample rates are clarity. The higher the sample rate; the higher the clarity because it gathers more info on whats on the disc. Imagine this sentence is being sampled at 48,000 kbs and the exact same sentence below is being sampled at 44,000 kbs.

thedifference betweenthose samplerates areclarityThehigher thesample ratethe higher teclarity becauseit gathersmore infon whatson thediscImaginehis sentenceis being sampleda 44000 kb and the xactsame sentenceabove is beingsampledat 48000kbs

Obviously if you read one out loud versus the other one the higher sample rate would read a lot smoother.

Would this be why the enhanced stereo songs seem to be slower to me? Or am I just hallucinating?

mookeywrench

gtbrown77 wrote:

Would this be why the enhanced stereo songs seem to be slower to me? Or am I just hallucinating?

Hallucinating....or if your DVD player is extremely old or has a crappy AD/DA (analog to digital/digital to analog) converter because it can't convert the right amount of samples in a second. Which in that case instead of 1.00 seconds to get 48,000 samples it might take 1.01 seconds to gain the sample.

Normally its nothing noticable or it comes out distorted. But i've never tried it on a really cheap or outdated DVD player.

sj_2150

mookeywrench wrote:

so if you properly handle CD's then there shouldn't be a problem...as to the difficulty with getting them out of the case...the widtch of the center doesnt change between dual disc and regular CD's so thats just luck of the draw if you're having trouble with that

well why cant they be simple and give you a dvd and a cd? its stupid and NOW they are eliminating MORE music art

merkinball

sj_2150 wrote:

well why cant they be simple and give you a dvd and a cd? its stupid and NOW they are eliminating MORE music art

Yep, I agree with this. R.E.M. did it with all their later releases recently (1 CD, 1 DVD-A), and so has Beck and the Flaming Lips. I much prefer this to the Dual Disc format. I can keep the DVD at home and not worry about scratching it up.